主页 > 医学前沿 >
【科普】Are Journal Rankings Distorting Science?
Are Journal Rankings Distorting Science?
Main Category: Biology / Biochemistry News
Article Date: 18 Mar 2007 - 9:00 PDT
| email this article | printer friendly | view or write opinions | Article Also Appears In
Neurology / NeuroscienceGeneticsStem Cell Research
The BMJ raises concerns over whether journal rankings (known as impact factors) are distorting publishing and science.
The impact factor is a measure of the citations to papers in scientific journals. It was developed as a simple measure of quality and has become a proxy for the importance of a journal to its field.
But a report by the BMJ warns that the popularity of this ranking is distorting the fundamental character of journals, forcing them to focus more and more on citations and less on readers.
Concerns include the fact that a bad paper may be cited because of its infamous errors and that a journal's rank has no bearing on the quality of individual papers it publishes. But more worrying is the trend towards using impact factors to guide decisions on research funding. This has been particularly noticeable in the UK, where universities now prioritise scientific fields that produce research published in the highest impact factor journals, causing substantial damage to the clinical research base.
In an accompanying article, two researchers discuss whether impact factors should be ditched.
Gareth Williams of Bristol University believes that the academic community should consign the impact factor to the dustbin. He sees the measure as fatally flawed and highly damaging to the academic community.
"The impact factor is a pointless waste of time, energy, and money, and a powerful driver of perverse behaviours in people who should know better," he writes. "It should be killed off, and the sooner the better."
But Richard Hobbs of Birmingham University thinks that rather than just discarding impact factors we should consider solutions to the problems. For example, extending the citation surveillance period, applying weightings to adjust for the average number of references across journals, or scoring journals on only their most important papers.
It's easy to criticise bibliometrics, but we should attempt to refine them and debate in parallel how we can track academic careers and encourage fewer, but better studies that affect the wider community, he concludes.
###
Contact: Emma Dickinson
BMJ-British Medical Journal 本人已认领该文编译，48小时后若未提交译文，请其他战友自由认领。 Are Journal Rankings Distorting Science?
杂志分级正在扭曲科学吗？
Article Date: 18 Mar 2007 - 9:00 PDT
发表日期：2007－3－18，9:00太平洋夏令时
The BMJ raises concerns over whether journal rankings (known as impact factors) are distorting publishing and science.
《英国医学杂志》提出了它的忧虑，即杂志分级（又被称为影响因子）是否正在扭曲我们的出版业和科学界。
The impact factor is a measure of the citations to papers in scientific journals. It was developed as a simple measure of quality and has become a proxy for the importance of a journal to its field.
影响因子是一个量度，主要是评价论文在科学杂志上被引用的情况。它一开始是作为一个简单的质量评价手段而产生的，后来逐渐变成了一本杂志在它专业领域重要性的替代物。
But a report by the BMJ warns that the popularity of this ranking is distorting the fundamental character of journals, forcing them to focus more and more on citations and less on readers.
但是《英国医学杂志》所写的这篇报告警告我们，这种杂志分级的普及和流行正在扭曲着杂志的最基本的角色，分级强迫它们把越来越多的注意力放在引用而不是读者身上。
Concerns include the fact that a bad paper may be cited because of its infamous errors and that a journal's rank has no bearing on the quality of individual papers it publishes. But more worrying is the trend towards using impact factors to guide decisions on research funding. This has been particularly noticeable in the UK, where universities now prioritise scientific fields that produce research published in the highest impact factor journals, causing substantial damage to the clinical research base.
忧虑包括这样一个事实即一篇质量低劣的论文由于它声名狼藉的错误也可以被引用，这样就造成了一本杂志的等级不足以支撑它所刊登的论文的质量。但是更令人担心的是用影响因子来指挥决定研究资金的用途。这种情况在英国已经非常令人注目了，现在英国的大学都把那些研究成果能够发表在影响因子最高的杂志上的科学领域放在最主要的位置上，而实际上却导致了临床研究基石的毁灭。
阅读本文的人还阅读：
作者:admin@医学,生命科学 2011-02-15 05:12
医学,生命科学网